"Guns carried for personal self defense" are an entirely separate debate from "Guns maintained for complex contingencies."
I'd be perfectly happy with a regulation regime in the US that allowed wide ownership of weapons (even SUPER SCARY ASSAULT RIFLES) tied to strict registries and severe penalties for misuse. Simultaneously, I want wide availability/legality of less-lethal self defense means (pepper spray, stunguns, tasers, etc...), relegating CCW for lethal weapons to no more than a "may issue" status regulated locally.
Let responsible people own guns. Let very few people carry them loaded in public. Severely punish anyone who misuses or allows the misuses of a gun. (e.g., gun stores or individuals that engage in a straw sale are shut down/jailed). Give as many non-lethal options as possible for personal self-defense.
Maybe, along these lines, work to make police response times better and, I don't know, work toward reducing crime overall by battling poverty and ignorance at a societal level...
But yeah, that's the base point as to why I'm saying what I've said to the guy - because you remember, you draw on someone in self defense, you're intending to kill them. You don't have to carry that through, you don't have to be successful, that that's what you should be intending to do - for exactly the reason you say, so you don't kill someone you shouldn't - or legally shouldn't, at least, since we can clearly debate the morals and ethics of it for days around here.
Mostly true, it is quite possible to draw on someone and not want to or intend to kill them. Police do it all the time when they have someone at gunpoint (and yes I know I'm not a cop). The difference in belief is that you have to be willing to use the gun if you draw it, and hope that you don't.
Well yeah, of course. If I pick up a hammer, I intend to strike something with it, but that doesn't mean I've any obligation to if I decide that I can get it done another way. Don't worry, I get where you're going with this - we fundamentally agree, we're just coming at the issue using slightly different words, from slightly different positions.
I don't agree with that line of reasoning, or at least with your choice of words.
Yes, you should only draw a gun if you are ready and willing to use it, but I don't think that's the same thing as intending to use it.
Similarly, if you shoot someone with a gun you absolutely should do so while absolutely accepting that the other person is very likely to die as the result of your actions. You very much should not deceive yourself into thinking that they're going to live.
Accepting that outcome is not, however, the same thing as intending to kill the other person. If your goal was to kill the other person - hopefully it isn't - you would continue to shoot them even if they're down and no longer able to shoot or stab you.
All that being said, I think that, in essentially any realistic circumstances, another person's likely death at your hands is not something you *should* accept, and so I am against the idea of carrying lethal weapons for self-defense.
I don't agree with that line of reasoning, or at least with your choice of words.
Fair enough. I won't pretend I put it as well as I probably could have. The line of reasoning is the same, it's the word-choice that's the point of contention here.
Maybe, along these lines, work to make police response times better and, I don't know, work toward reducing crime overall by battling poverty and ignorance at a societal level...
What, without guns? Now that's just Un-American. You can hear Old Glory crying.
If a gun crime happens in your neighborhood, and you (innocent) are fingered as a possible suspect, your existing guns' microstamps can be used to at least prove that you didn't use any of said guns to commit said gun crime.
That is certainly one good example of an argument for micro stamping.
Some of the arguments against micro stamping are:
Who holds the tested shells? In order for micro stamping to work we have to know who has the gun. A license plate on a car works because you have to get a license and register your car when you sell it. Then the title gets transferred to you. If there is no central registry for those micro stamps then it won't be effective once the gun is sold legally to someone else. Since registration isn't required in most states you have now introduced backdoor registration and that is something many gun advocates don't want to see.
Why not just have front-door registration, then?
Also, a central registry for microstamps is not the same thing as a gun registry, because the registry would only need to associate microstamps with guns, not with gun owners. Once you know which gun shot a bullet, then you have sufficient evidence to call for a firearms trace via the records that FFLs are required to keep.
Micro stamping is easily defeated, since you can replace the firing pin easily on any gun. You can alter the firing pin, etc etc. Bad guys can easily circumvent the micro stamp.
Yes, and they can easily circumvent serial numbers as well. And yet...
It's utility to track and stop criminals is thus defeated.
The ATF traces something like 350,000 guns per year. Their data also includes "Time-to-Crime" statistics for roughly 150,000 crime-related guns in 2012 - see the data here. As such, I'm talking about firearms that were, in fact, related to criminal investigations and were recovered by law enforcement agencies. In order to trace a gun, the ATF needs a serial number, and those serial numbers are also quite easy to remove.
If the "bad guys" are so very good at circumventing the measures we could use against them, can you possibly come up with any explanation for the scale of those trace statistics? I have a rather simple one - your argument is simply wrong.
The idea that the "bad guys" are all simply going to completely circumvent measures like microstamping and registries just doesn't hold up. It's much like the adage that "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" - taken literally the statement itself is a truism, but the underlying thought is misguided. When people say that, they are trying to imply is that people who end up using guns in crimes would have had the guns regardless of whether or not it was illegal to own a gun.
The core concept behind that thinking - that, in rough terms, the "good guys" never do anything wrong, and the "bad guys" will do anything and everything regardless of the law, is founded on a grossly psychologically unrealistic false dichotomy.
Also, although the fact that plenty of crime guns still have serial numbers proves that similar measures can and do work, the effectiveness of measures like microstamping, licensing and registration can also be increased by the addition of severe legal penalties, as Rym has said many times.
Agree to disagree. Or not, it doesn't matter really. I have the right to not be a victim.
How are you a victim if you run away? Also, how exactly is it that you're not a victim if you're forced to kill someone? I think that generally tends to be rather harmful to your well-being.
If during my resistance to being made a victim the aggressor attacks me in a way in which my life is endangered or serious harm could happen to me then I will defend myself to try and prevent that. If that defense kills the other person that is on their head.
Sorry, no. You can't just wave that off. Yes, it's primarily their responsibility, but it's on your head too.
I don't need help, we aren't ever going to change each others opinions.
That kind of sentiment bothers me. One side of the debate is wrong, and so an admission that neither can convince the other is an admission of fundamentally unresolvable irrationality on one (or both) sides.
I, for one, won't say that it's impossible for you to change my opinion, because I know quite well that I could be wrong, and that I have been wrong in the past. That being said, I am quite confident in what I'm saying - I wouldn't be arguing here if I wasn't.
Also, a central registry for microstamps is not the same thing as a gun registry, because the registry would only need to associate microstamps with guns, not with gun owners. Once you know which gun shot a bullet, then you have sufficient evidence to call for a firearms trace via the records that FFLs are required to keep.
Why not have a central registry. Well that is a good question. If we lived in a society where guns were accepted like Switzerland (where a simple google search of Swiss open carry shows lots of examples of people carrying rifles in public) then most gun owners who oppose registration wouldn't have a problem with any kind of registration. Unfortunately in the US gun opponents have openly stated that the end goal of their efforts in gun control is the ultimate confiscation and ban of personally owned guns up to and for some including hunting rifles. This kind of rhetoric has polarized the argument making it an all or nothing debate. Having a registry allows the government to know who has what and when parts of the government say they want to take your guns that makes people reluctant to give them that information. We have also had agencies such as the FBI break the law and keep background check information when the law said they could not, damaging the confidence people would have in a microstamp registry not being used as a gun registry.
Microstamping has other issues such as the California law which requires two stamps to be placed on the cartridge, a technological feat that neither Sturm Ruger or Smith and Wesson was able to pull off when they tried.
Yes, and they can easily circumvent serial numbers as well. And yet...
In order to trace a gun, the ATF needs a serial number, and those serial numbers are also quite easy to remove.
If the "bad guys" are so very good at circumventing the measures we could use against them, can you possibly come up with any explanation for the scale of those trace statistics? I have a rather simple one - your argument is simply wrong.
Yup, the ATF does a lot of traces. Do you have the stats on the number of guns used in homicides that aren't traceable due to the serial numbers being taken off? Nope, neither do I. Your right, a lot of criminals are either dumb, naive or don't think they are going to get caught. They probably don't realize they can change the grooves in their barrels or simply grind of the serial numbers. They might not ever realize what micro stamping is, that doesn't mean it isn't easy to circumnavigate.
The core concept behind that thinking - that, in rough terms, the "good guys" never do anything wrong, and the "bad guys" will do anything and everything regardless of the law, is founded on a grossly psychologically unrealistic false dichotomy.
Also, although the fact that plenty of crime guns still have serial numbers proves that similar measures can and do work, the effectiveness of measures like microstamping, licensing and registration can also be increased by the addition of severe legal penalties, as Rym has said many times.
You did see my "'s right? I don't think every "good guy" is an angel who can do no wrong.
Being a felon in possession of a firearm is supposed to add 10 years to your sentance, Per 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). Doesn't seem to be helping stem the tide of gun violence. Harsher penalties (although I support them) do not have a huge impact on preventing crime.
That kind of sentiment bothers me. One side of the debate is wrong, and so an admission that neither can convince the other is an admission of fundamentally unresolvable irrationality on one (or both) sides.
I, for one, won't say that it's impossible for you to change my opinion, because I know quite well that I could be wrong, and that I have been wrong in the past. That being said, I am quite confident in what I'm saying - I wouldn't be arguing here if I wasn't.
My statement that you were referring to, that I don't need help convincing Luke, was in response to him. His and my positions are so fundamentally far from one another that I'm not trying to make an argument to convince him and I don't have to "help myself" because I know it's not ever going to happen. His position is so absolutist he basically equates me with being a murderer. Fine, but there isn't much to debate at that point.
I'm happy to debate in a friendly manner with anyone here who is willing to do the same.
That kind of sentiment bothers me. One side of the debate is wrong, and so an admission that neither can convince the other is an admission of fundamentally unresolvable irrationality on one (or both) sides.
I have a slight issue with saying one side of the debate is "wrong". Some people are pacifists and some feel the right to defend themselves when threatened. When looked at from a step back, neither side is right on a absolute level. Either side is only right from their own perspective.
Normal people can all agree that murder is wrong. The acceptability of murder does not change when ones perspective changes. That cannot be said for the nuanced opinions we all debate over. One cannot say Republicans are wrong and Democrats are right absolutely. A persons perspective can change and then their opinion on the same matter will be different. If that can be true then right and wrong are subjective.
The reason we debate gun control is because in a absolute sense there is no "right", only a subjective right. What is right for me may not be right for you. You will not see us debating the acceptability of murder, theft, rape, etc. There is simply no debate there because there is a absolute value of right and wrong.
I will always have a issue with forcing subjective right and wrong, or subjective opinions on the public. Don't legislate that I must or cannot use contraceptive, that I must or cannot go to church, that I must or cannot marry another man, or that I must or cannot own a gun. Thus I will always have a issue with people saying "owning this gun is wrong to me, so you cannot have it either". We can both be right, just don't make laws saying your right trumps my right. You don't hear people saying "I want a law that says everyone must carry a gun at all times". To me that is no different then what I do hear said which is "I want a law saying no one can carry a gun". I think both are subjective so should not be in legislation for the general public.
Earlier this evening I looked back and I noticed that the big discussion we had back in December on this very topic was with AaronC. I thought he was someone new with new arguments or new nuances. Turns out not. Just someone who has forgotten all our arguments and nuance from December and is recycling all the same old arguments and misconceptions over again.
In this case, I don't think we can both be right. AaronC hasn't replied to my request for an very brief overview of how he wants the world to improve in the future, or any way he thinks the world could change to lead to such improvement. If he has nothing to add, there is literally nothing of worth to anything he says except reactionary conservatism. This is not a good sign in terms of debating.
To be clear, back in December I posited that I might be a non-lethal force, non-killing absolutist, but I wasn't quite sure. In discussion with AaronC and others, the only thing that happened was that I found this position I thought to be too extreme to actually be the most logical and moral position to take. Thanks for helping me change my mind, but sorry that it was further from your position than when you started arguing.
I haven't forgotten anything you said earlier and I'm not going to passively aggressively or aggressively insult you either by implying that your not smart enough to remember what we said before or somehow try to make a position that only by changing your opinion have I given anything constructive to the discussion here. You call my beliefs old arguments and misconceptions, fine, you are free to do that, it doesn't make it true.
This isn't a debate, there aren't formal rules and there won't be a winner chosen by a panel of judges.
You are a non lethal force non killing absolutist, I'm glad I've helped you reach your belief system, I mean that without sarcasm or malice. I also hope you never have a reason to regret that position and I mean that seriously without any sarcasm.
I am free to voice my opinion and your belief that I have "nothing of worth to anything" is pig headed as the people you rail against. I read every word you write, even when I think your naive and wrong.
I'm also not going anywhere, I'm not leaving the forum and your not chasing me off.
This isn't a debate, there aren't formal rules and there won't be a winner chosen by a panel of judges.
Why don't we have a formal debate, then? As there is more than one person on each "side", we can do a proper Intelligence^2 style debate on this. I volunteer a special episode of Friday Night Party Line as the venue. We can do the debate, then have people vote on it afterwards.
Also, a central registry for microstamps is not the same thing as a gun registry, because the registry would only need to associate microstamps with guns, not with gun owners. Once you know which gun shot a bullet, then you have sufficient evidence to call for a firearms trace via the records that FFLs are required to keep.
Why not have a central registry. Well that is a good question. If we lived in a society where guns were accepted like Switzerland (where a simple google search of Swiss open carry shows lots of examples of people carrying rifles in public) then most gun owners who oppose registration wouldn't have a problem with any kind of registration. Unfortunately in the US gun opponents have openly stated that the end goal of their efforts in gun control is the ultimate confiscation and ban of personally owned guns up to and for some including hunting rifles. This kind of rhetoric has polarized the argument making it an all or nothing debate.
So in the end your go-to argument against most gun control measures is simply a slippery slope.
It's also quite silly to blame the situation on rhetoric, especially if you only blame it on just one side. The driving factors are massive numbers of gun deaths on one side, and extreme skepticism of any and all government involvement in the matter on the other side. Of course there's going to be heavy rhetoric in this kind of situation.
What gun opponents want, if it isn't already exceedingly obvious to you, is for less people to die. Yes, many of them feel that confiscation might well be a big help in doing this, and they're probably right about that. However, the fact that you disagree about confiscation as a measure doesn't mean that you should oppose absolutely anything and everything else they might suggest. The goal of reducing gun deaths is, surely, a goal you should be supporting along with them.
Also, the idea that the rhetoric somehow makes the situation "all or nothing" is ludicrous. Some people may argue this way, but when it comes to making laws and taking actual measures, the slippery slope is not really very slippery at all.
If the government wants to take your guns, not having a pre-existing registry isn't going to stop them from doing it. Moreover, introducing a registry doesn't somehow make the government want to take your guns any more.
In the end, it comes down to public opinion. You can quite easily support a gun registry without supporting confiscation, as can everyone else.
Having a registry allows the government to know who has what and when parts of the government say they want to take your guns that makes people reluctant to give them that information. We have also had agencies such as the FBI break the law and keep background check information when the law said they could not, damaging the confidence people would have in a microstamp registry not being used as a gun registry.
How exactly could a microstamp registry be used as a gun registry? If the government is merely given the microstamp and the serial number of the gun associated with that microstamp, how can they possibly turn that into an all-out gun registry?
Yup, the ATF does a lot of traces. Do you have the stats on the number of guns used in homicides that aren't traceable due to the serial numbers being taken off? Nope, neither do I. Your right, a lot of criminals are either dumb, naive or don't think they are going to get caught. They probably don't realize they can change the grooves in their barrels or simply grind of the serial numbers. They might not ever realize what micro stamping is, that doesn't mean it isn't easy to circumnavigate.
Sure, but that's not the point. You argued that being easy to circumnavigate makes the measure ineffective and pointless - it does not.
The core concept behind that thinking - that, in rough terms, the "good guys" never do anything wrong, and the "bad guys" will do anything and everything regardless of the law, is founded on a grossly psychologically unrealistic false dichotomy.
Also, although the fact that plenty of crime guns still have serial numbers proves that similar measures can and do work, the effectiveness of measures like microstamping, licensing and registration can also be increased by the addition of severe legal penalties, as Rym has said many times.
You did see my "'s right? I don't think every "good guy" is an angel who can do no wrong.
You didn't use the scare quotes there, and my main point is that the "good guy"/"bad guy" distinction is misleading, scare quotes or no.
Being a felon in possession of a firearm is supposed to add 10 years to your sentance, Per 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). Doesn't seem to be helping stem the tide of gun violence. Harsher penalties (although I support them) do not have a huge impact on preventing crime.
It's hard to say how much that measure does or does not help to reduce the amount of gun violence, but I'd be inclined to agree it doesn't make that much difference.
Primarily, it would be because they're already a felon - given past evidence, it's probably more likely that they would ignore certain laws than others would. Also, there are clear and immediate benefit to a felon in owning a firearm - the foremost among them is probably that it would make them feel a lot safer.
That kind of sentiment bothers me. One side of the debate is wrong, and so an admission that neither can convince the other is an admission of fundamentally unresolvable irrationality on one (or both) sides.
I, for one, won't say that it's impossible for you to change my opinion, because I know quite well that I could be wrong, and that I have been wrong in the past. That being said, I am quite confident in what I'm saying - I wouldn't be arguing here if I wasn't.
My statement that you were referring to, that I don't need help convincing Luke, was in response to him. His and my positions are so fundamentally far from one another that I'm not trying to make an argument to convince him and I don't have to "help myself" because I know it's not ever going to happen. His position is so absolutist he basically equates me with being a murderer. Fine, but there isn't much to debate at that point.
Yes, I know you're talking to Luke on that one, but I totally disagree with the idea you're putting forth. It also seems pretty silly to suggest that he equates you with being a murderer - I don't see him doing so.
The further your opinions diverge with someone else, the more you have to talk about. Yes, the wide gap makes it less likely that you'll convince the other, but it isn't just about wholly convincing one person or the other. There are plenty of advantages to having a debate, and many of those advantages are greater, not smaller, in the case of an extreme disagreement.
In the case of an extreme disagreement, I think it is very important to discover the core, underlying causes of that disagreement. It is all the more important to do so when opinions diverge wildly.
There are, of course, other advantages. For one thing, debates can help either side to clarify and solidify their position, and to correct flaws in their thinking or in their arguments.
Additionally, debates don't just benefit the people who are arguing on either side - anyone else who reads the arguments from both sides can get plenty of use out of it.
Besides that, although you may not expect to wholly change someone's mind, that doesn't mean you won't have any effect whatsoever. At the very least, you can reasonably expect that there will be minor aspects to their position that can be corrected or dismissed altogether. You should also expect that, if you can lead them to understand your position, they should be at least a little bit more amenable to it, or more tolerant of those who hold it.
That kind of sentiment bothers me. One side of the debate is wrong, and so an admission that neither can convince the other is an admission of fundamentally unresolvable irrationality on one (or both) sides.
I have a slight issue with saying one side of the debate is "wrong". Some people are pacifists and some feel the right to defend themselves when threatened. When looked at from a step back, neither side is right on a absolute level. Either side is only right from their own perspective.
Normal people can all agree that murder is wrong. The acceptability of murder does not change when ones perspective changes. That cannot be said for the nuanced opinions we all debate over. One cannot say Republicans are wrong and Democrats are right absolutely. A persons perspective can change and then their opinion on the same matter will be different. If that can be true then right and wrong are subjective.
You're drawing a highly arbitrary distinction between "objective" and "subjective". It seems as though you call something "subjective" or "objective" solely based on whether or not there is general agreement on the matter.
Yes, people can change their opinions on something being right and wrong when they change perspective, but I don't think that necessarily makes that something "subjective". Instead, I think that it's primarily evidence that those perspectives themselves can be flawed or "wrong".
The reason we debate gun control is because in a absolute sense there is no "right", only a subjective right. What is right for me may not be right for you. You will not see us debating the acceptability of murder, theft, rape, etc. There is simply no debate there because there is a absolute value of right and wrong.
Yes, people generally agree that murder, theft, and rape are wrong, but that isn't objectively true simply because people agree about it. Similarly, there is a lot of disagreement on climate change, but that doesn't make it subjective.
Also, while I would agree that murder and rape are wrong in anything short of a ludicrous hypothetical, I don't think that that is the case for theft - I do think theft can be justifiable in some circumstances.
I will always have a issue with forcing subjective right and wrong, or subjective opinions on the public. Don't legislate that I must or cannot use contraceptive, that I must or cannot go to church, that I must or cannot marry another man, or that I must or cannot own a gun.
Don't legislate that I must or cannot own another human being as a slave...
If we followed your line of reasoning, it would have been unacceptable to ban slavery. After all, there was a time when people had different perspectives on slavery - some felt it was OK, and some didn't. Indeed, some people changed their minds on whether or not slavery was wrong. By your argument, that would make slavery a subjective matter, and hence to ban slavery would have been "forcing subjective opinions on the public".
I'm sorry, Belliger, but I don't buy into the concept of "subjective" right and wrong and "objective" right and wrong - only right and wrong.
Thus I will always have a issue with people saying "owning this gun is wrong to me, so you cannot have it either". We can both be right, just don't make laws saying your right trumps my right. You don't hear people saying "I want a law that says everyone must carry a gun at all times". To me that is no different then what I do hear said which is "I want a law saying no one can carry a gun". I think both are subjective so should not be in legislation for the general public.
In this case, I do feel we can both be right.
Sorry, no. People aren't saying "owning this gun is wrong to me, so you cannot have it either". This isn't simply a matter of people who have different feelings about guns. The core conceptual issue is not a disagreement between people who "like" guns and people who do not.
This is a matter of large numbers of people dying in gun-related deaths who might not be dying if at least some kinds of measures were taken. Whether or not you "like" guns, or "like" the idea of people being able to own a gun, simply isn't what's at stake here.
Moreover, it's not like the only measure that might be taken is an all-out ban of all guns - there are plenty of less extreme measures that could do plenty of good in this matter. As such, not only is your concept of "subjective right and wrong" relatively flawed, it's also not particularly relevant.
I am free to voice my opinion and your belief that I have "nothing of worth to anything" is pig headed as the people you rail against. I read every word you write, even when I think your naive and wrong.
I'm also not going anywhere, I'm not leaving the forum and your not chasing me off.
I don't want to chase you off, I want you to contribute something. So far, all you have done is say "No, we can't do that... no, that would never work... no, you're wrong about that... no, we shouldn't do that..."
If, at every step of every proposal about every point about gun control, the only thing you contribute is "No" then you really are doing and saying nothing.
Tell us what you would change.
Or, at the very least, give us a hint at the philosophy or outlook or moral framework that you subscribe to that, miraculously, at every single point, holds true to exactly the laws that are in place at the moment and are incompatible with any attempt to reduce the loss of life to guns in the future.
We haven't even touched on what gun control measures I think are reasonable. I have stated what many gun owners believe and what many gun control advocates have said. It is not unreasonable to believe that the Brady people want guns taken away and plan to do so with incremental restrictions, they have said exactly that themselves.
I have added to the thread with information on the law, on mindset and one capabilities of weapons and their limitations. I think I'm contributing more than a no.
Gun control laws that AaronC supports:
Mandatory safety training and licensing of gun owners issued in all states in a shall issue method for anyone that passes the training including classroom and practice training. Classroom training includes discussion of the legalities of self defense and an overview of the aftermath. (legal, emotional) A background check for the license, as long as the license is shall issue and the cost is minimal so as not to be used as a way to prevent it being issued. Mandatory sentences for felons caught with firearms. Mandatory sentences (add on) for violent crimes committed with a firearm. Background checks could be eliminated by the holding of a license to own that required the check already.
I support the idea of a gun registry in principle, I am afraid of the gun registry in practice. If a gun registry could be maintained by an independent third party agency that provided a double blind for the info until a gun was recovered I would be ok with it, as well as the requirement that all guns when sold had to have their info updated. (or when stolen) We have already seen the FBI, the TSA, the ATF and other agencies abuse their power and exceed their authority and retain data they were legally mandated not too... so I'm leery.
There are probably more, but its 4:26 am and I'm going to bed.
Harsher penalties have been shown to have zero impact on preventing crime. Overall crime is down in the US and one factor may be three strikes laws and the sheer number of people in prison unable to commit the crimes they would have committed. The evidence is not clear on that, there are many other factors.
Harsher penalties are about penalties, not prevention.
Mandatory safety training and licensing of gun owners issued in all states in a shall issue method for anyone that passes the training including classroom and practice training. Classroom training includes discussion of the legalities of self defense and an overview of the aftermath. (legal, emotional) A background check for the license, as long as the license is shall issue and the cost is minimal so as not to be used as a way to prevent it being issued. Mandatory sentences for felons caught with firearms. Mandatory sentences (add on) for violent crimes committed with a firearm. Background checks could be eliminated by the holding of a license to own that required the check already.
I like those ideas, but I'd also add in mandatory re-training, after a certain period of time dictated by license class. Yeah, I get that it's time and possibly extra expense, but it's better to have refreshers than not - Rules change, laws change, and really, it's always good to keep your training refreshed and up to date. I know we've both been through re-training on other skills, and we know the benefits and why it's done.
(Actually, to be fair, I'd support periodic re-testing for vehicle licenses as well. Can't tell you the number of times I've nearly be wiped by some asshole who learned to drive before roundabouts were invented and hasn't learned how in the intervening time.)
I support the idea of a gun registry in principle, I am afraid of the gun registry in practice. If a gun registry could be maintained by an independent third party agency that provided a double blind for the info until a gun was recovered I would be ok with it, as well as the requirement that all guns when sold had to have their info updated. (or when stolen) We have already seen the FBI, the TSA, the ATF and other agencies abuse their power and exceed their authority and retain data they were legally mandated not too... so I'm leery.
I see where you're coming from, but it's a point I've made before - if they wanted to dick people, a registry isn't going to make one iota of difference. They can already figure it out trivially from cross-referencing other information. So even from that perspective, I can't see the harm in a registry that they can't already do with an equal amount of effort.
However, an independent watchdog isn't a bad idea, as long as the watchdog has some teeth. Someone is watching the watchmen, so it'd be nice if it wasn't the watchmen themselves doing it.
We haven't even touched on what gun control measures I think are reasonable. I have stated what many gun owners believe and what many gun control advocates have said. It is not unreasonable to believe that the Brady people want guns taken away and plan to do so with incremental restrictions, they have said exactly that themselves.
Sure, that might well be true, but my point is this - so fucking what?
Once you know the contents of the argument itself, the motivations and feelings of the people who advocate for a certain idea have essentially no bearing on the validity of that argument. If you're going to reject gun control measures, do so on the actual merits rather than on your perceptions of the people who support them.
Moreover, if you start judging based on those kinds of perceptions, you're making yourself far more susceptible to cognitive biases. You are much more vulnerable to confirmation bias if you allow yourself to judge a position based on the opinions of specific people.
Besides, are you really going to say that one should oppose everything that comes out of the Brady Campaign's mouths simply because they said it? Support the measures you think will help, and oppose the ones that don't. Besides that, I think it's telling that you're the one who brought up the Brady Campaign and not the gun control advocates in this thread - I, for one, have tried to focus on the actual ideas at stake.
Just because someone wants to confiscate guns altogether doesn't mean you can't come to an agreement with them about reasonable measures. That doesn't stop you from putting all of your effort into opposing any unreasonable measures they might bring up later.
In short, I really don't buy into your whole "slippery slope" argument against gun control.
Mandatory safety training and licensing of gun owners issued in all states in a shall issue method for anyone that passes the training including classroom and practice training. Classroom training includes discussion of the legalities of self defense and an overview of the aftermath. (legal, emotional) A background check for the license, as long as the license is shall issue and the cost is minimal so as not to be used as a way to prevent it being issued. Mandatory sentences for felons caught with firearms. Mandatory sentences (add on) for violent crimes committed with a firearm. Background checks could be eliminated by the holding of a license to own that required the check already.
I (and, I think, most people in this thread) agree with you regards to mandatory safety training and licensing. Unfortunately, it seems like there's not enough support for it more broadly - more advocacy is needed.
I am, however, not so hot on mandatory sentencing. Yes, it makes sense to punish felons for possessing firearms, and to sentence violent crimes more heavily when they're committed with a firearm. That said, the actual sentencing should still be done on the specifics of an individual case; mandatory sentences are not generally a good idea.
Harsher penalties have been shown to have zero impact on preventing crime.
I think the truth is somewhat more complicated than that; it likely depends to a significant extent on the nature of the crime. Nonetheless, it's an important point; it is rhetorically attractive to support harsher penalties, but the effectiveness is questionable.
That being said, I think that that qualitative differences (rather than quantitative ones) do matter. I think the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony, and between a fine and major jail time does, in fact, matter. Also, I think there is a significant difference between penalties and no penalties at all, and between poorly-enforced penalties and well-enforced ones.
In the context in which penalties were brought up - that is, the enforcement of gun control measures in and of themselves, rather than as an addition to pre-existing criminal sentencing - I think such penalties would, in fact, make a difference.
Once you know the contents of the argument itself, the motivations and feelings of the people who advocate for a certain idea have essentially no bearing on the validity of that argument. If you're going to reject gun control measures, do so on the actual merits rather than on your perceptions of the people who support them.
The motivations are the unspoken goals of the advocates. We hear this every day in politics regarding embedded racial/sexual biases in laws that on the surface appear to be impartial. You can not ignore the feelings behind the people pushing an agenda but instead have to look at their long term goals and how what they are pushing enables those goals.
I realize that what I have described sounds exactly like a slippery slope argument but it is not a slippery slope when the people behind it have already stated their end goal and method to achieve it.
The motivations are the unspoken goals of the advocates. We hear this every day in politics regarding embedded racial/sexual biases in laws that on the surface appear to be impartial.
You don't need to know someone's motivations in order to judge the validity of their ideas. It's easy enough to identify implicit racial biases in a law if you evaluate the effects of that law.
I realize that what I have described sounds exactly like a slippery slope argument but it is not a slippery slope when the people behind it have already stated their end goal and method to achieve it.
If the slope isn't slippery, then there is no problem going down it to the point where you actually want to stop. The term "slippery slope" refers to the idea of opposing A, even though you may support A, because A leads to B and you strongly oppose B. That, in and of itself, is not fallacious reasoning; it's the absence of a demonstration that A actually does lead to B that makes it fallacious.
In this case, it's ludicrous to suggest that the mere fact that the Brady Campaign exists means that gun control measures will lead to gun confiscation. Even if it is true that their ultimate goal is to ban all guns, which is not all that clear, they hardly have the ability to do so. What, exactly, is the causal mechanism by which this one advocacy group is going to achieve your claimed goal?
Mandatory sentences for felons caught with firearms. Mandatory sentences (add on) for violent crimes committed with a firearm. [...] Harsher penalties have been shown to have zero impact on preventing crime.
I'm not sure which way you're going with the last statement. Are you for harsher penalties on their own merits? Or maybe you just contradicted yourself.
Also I think mandatory sentences aren't really a good idea.
How much do you want to bet that the Santa Barbara shooter purchased his firearm legally? I think it's a pretty good probability.
Not a surprise if he did. Some suprise though - turns out he's actually a super hardcore libertarian/Redpiller/MRA. Oh, and didn't you know? It's already been discovered as a false flag for obummer to grab yer guns and libertiehs.
How much do you want to bet that the Santa Barbara shooter purchased his firearm legally? I think it's a pretty good probability.
Not a surprise if he did. Some suprise though - turns out he's actually a super hardcore libertarian/Redpiller/MRA. Oh, and didn't you know? It's already been discovered as a false flag for obummer to grab yer guns and libertiehs.
Yeah I saw his video earlier today. He was a total Fedora McFriendzone. Basically "Wah I'm so perfect why doesn't anybody love me?" spoken in a forced/fake intellectual tone and vocabulary.
Also, I'm with AaronC about the registry. I think that would be a good way of getting the extra benefits from a registry (however small they may be) without pissing off the "teken mah guns" crowd and inviting governmental abuse.
I completely agree with Rym on the less than lethal weapons. I could open carry a gun without a permit but I have to get a CPL and take an extra course to carry a Taser?
I completely agree with Rym on the less than lethal weapons. I could open carry a gun without a permit but I have to get a CPL and take an extra course to carry a Taser?
Well, I don't agree with unlicensed open carry - at least if it's loaded, anyway, but that's another issue - I do agree with needing a CCW/CPL and training to carry a Taser. Have you ever been hit with one? It's fucking torture. All the horrors of being locked in a non-responsive body, but with excruciating pain on top as all your muscles decide they want to try doing their own thing and just all go their separate ways. I can gut out pepper spray(which still sucks and I have no desire to repeat the experience), but you don't gut out a Taser. The places that have policy stating that you have to experience the effects of a Taser before you can carry one have the right idea, tell you what.
I would be fine for people to be allowed to shoot someone in the body or head if they themselves had gone through training and taken a bullet to the body and/or head.
I would be fine for people to be allowed to shoot someone in the body or head if they themselves had gone through training and taken a bullet to the body and/or head.
Waitaminute...I've got a scar right-side high on my chest from being hit with a negligent discharge that I'll have to show you sometime. Fuck yeah, According to Luke, I can shoot people.
Comments
"Guns carried for personal self defense" are an entirely separate debate from "Guns maintained for complex contingencies."
I'd be perfectly happy with a regulation regime in the US that allowed wide ownership of weapons (even SUPER SCARY ASSAULT RIFLES) tied to strict registries and severe penalties for misuse. Simultaneously, I want wide availability/legality of less-lethal self defense means (pepper spray, stunguns, tasers, etc...), relegating CCW for lethal weapons to no more than a "may issue" status regulated locally.
Let responsible people own guns. Let very few people carry them loaded in public. Severely punish anyone who misuses or allows the misuses of a gun. (e.g., gun stores or individuals that engage in a straw sale are shut down/jailed). Give as many non-lethal options as possible for personal self-defense.
Maybe, along these lines, work to make police response times better and, I don't know, work toward reducing crime overall by battling poverty and ignorance at a societal level...
Yes, you should only draw a gun if you are ready and willing to use it, but I don't think that's the same thing as intending to use it.
Similarly, if you shoot someone with a gun you absolutely should do so while absolutely accepting that the other person is very likely to die as the result of your actions. You very much should not deceive yourself into thinking that they're going to live.
Accepting that outcome is not, however, the same thing as intending to kill the other person. If your goal was to kill the other person - hopefully it isn't - you would continue to shoot them even if they're down and no longer able to shoot or stab you.
All that being said, I think that, in essentially any realistic circumstances, another person's likely death at your hands is not something you *should* accept, and so I am against the idea of carrying lethal weapons for self-defense.
Also, a central registry for microstamps is not the same thing as a gun registry, because the registry would only need to associate microstamps with guns, not with gun owners. Once you know which gun shot a bullet, then you have sufficient evidence to call for a firearms trace via the records that FFLs are required to keep. That is just straight-up false. Yes, and they can easily circumvent serial numbers as well. And yet... The ATF traces something like 350,000 guns per year. Their data also includes "Time-to-Crime" statistics for roughly 150,000 crime-related guns in 2012 - see the data here. As such, I'm talking about firearms that were, in fact, related to criminal investigations and were recovered by law enforcement agencies. In order to trace a gun, the ATF needs a serial number, and those serial numbers are also quite easy to remove.
If the "bad guys" are so very good at circumventing the measures we could use against them, can you possibly come up with any explanation for the scale of those trace statistics? I have a rather simple one - your argument is simply wrong.
The idea that the "bad guys" are all simply going to completely circumvent measures like microstamping and registries just doesn't hold up. It's much like the adage that "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" - taken literally the statement itself is a truism, but the underlying thought is misguided. When people say that, they are trying to imply is that people who end up using guns in crimes would have had the guns regardless of whether or not it was illegal to own a gun.
The core concept behind that thinking - that, in rough terms, the "good guys" never do anything wrong, and the "bad guys" will do anything and everything regardless of the law, is founded on a grossly psychologically unrealistic false dichotomy.
Also, although the fact that plenty of crime guns still have serial numbers proves that similar measures can and do work, the effectiveness of measures like microstamping, licensing and registration can also be increased by the addition of severe legal penalties, as Rym has said many times.
That kind of sentiment bothers me. One side of the debate is wrong, and so an admission that neither can convince the other is an admission of fundamentally unresolvable irrationality on one (or both) sides.
I, for one, won't say that it's impossible for you to change my opinion, because I know quite well that I could be wrong, and that I have been wrong in the past. That being said, I am quite confident in what I'm saying - I wouldn't be arguing here if I wasn't.
Microstamping has other issues such as the California law which requires two stamps to be placed on the cartridge, a technological feat that neither Sturm Ruger or Smith and Wesson was able to pull off when they tried. Yup, the ATF does a lot of traces. Do you have the stats on the number of guns used in homicides that aren't traceable due to the serial numbers being taken off? Nope, neither do I. Your right, a lot of criminals are either dumb, naive or don't think they are going to get caught. They probably don't realize they can change the grooves in their barrels or simply grind of the serial numbers. They might not ever realize what micro stamping is, that doesn't mean it isn't easy to circumnavigate. You did see my "'s right? I don't think every "good guy" is an angel who can do no wrong.
Being a felon in possession of a firearm is supposed to add 10 years to your sentance, Per 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). Doesn't seem to be helping stem the tide of gun violence. Harsher penalties (although I support them) do not have a huge impact on preventing crime.
My statement that you were referring to, that I don't need help convincing Luke, was in response to him. His and my positions are so fundamentally far from one another that I'm not trying to make an argument to convince him and I don't have to "help myself" because I know it's not ever going to happen. His position is so absolutist he basically equates me with being a murderer. Fine, but there isn't much to debate at that point.
I'm happy to debate in a friendly manner with anyone here who is willing to do the same.
Normal people can all agree that murder is wrong. The acceptability of murder does not change when ones perspective changes. That cannot be said for the nuanced opinions we all debate over. One cannot say Republicans are wrong and Democrats are right absolutely. A persons perspective can change and then their opinion on the same matter will be different. If that can be true then right and wrong are subjective.
The reason we debate gun control is because in a absolute sense there is no "right", only a subjective right. What is right for me may not be right for you. You will not see us debating the acceptability of murder, theft, rape, etc. There is simply no debate there because there is a absolute value of right and wrong.
I will always have a issue with forcing subjective right and wrong, or subjective opinions on the public. Don't legislate that I must or cannot use contraceptive, that I must or cannot go to church, that I must or cannot marry another man, or that I must or cannot own a gun. Thus I will always have a issue with people saying "owning this gun is wrong to me, so you cannot have it either". We can both be right, just don't make laws saying your right trumps my right. You don't hear people saying "I want a law that says everyone must carry a gun at all times". To me that is no different then what I do hear said which is "I want a law saying no one can carry a gun". I think both are subjective so should not be in legislation for the general public.
In this case, I do feel we can both be right.
In this case, I don't think we can both be right. AaronC hasn't replied to my request for an very brief overview of how he wants the world to improve in the future, or any way he thinks the world could change to lead to such improvement. If he has nothing to add, there is literally nothing of worth to anything he says except reactionary conservatism. This is not a good sign in terms of debating.
To be clear, back in December I posited that I might be a non-lethal force, non-killing absolutist, but I wasn't quite sure. In discussion with AaronC and others, the only thing that happened was that I found this position I thought to be too extreme to actually be the most logical and moral position to take. Thanks for helping me change my mind, but sorry that it was further from your position than when you started arguing.
This isn't a debate, there aren't formal rules and there won't be a winner chosen by a panel of judges.
You are a non lethal force non killing absolutist, I'm glad I've helped you reach your belief system, I mean that without sarcasm or malice. I also hope you never have a reason to regret that position and I mean that seriously without any sarcasm.
I am free to voice my opinion and your belief that I have "nothing of worth to anything" is pig headed as the people you rail against. I read every word you write, even when I think your naive and wrong.
I'm also not going anywhere, I'm not leaving the forum and your not chasing me off.
Who'd like to participate?
It's also quite silly to blame the situation on rhetoric, especially if you only blame it on just one side. The driving factors are massive numbers of gun deaths on one side, and extreme skepticism of any and all government involvement in the matter on the other side. Of course there's going to be heavy rhetoric in this kind of situation.
What gun opponents want, if it isn't already exceedingly obvious to you, is for less people to die. Yes, many of them feel that confiscation might well be a big help in doing this, and they're probably right about that. However, the fact that you disagree about confiscation as a measure doesn't mean that you should oppose absolutely anything and everything else they might suggest. The goal of reducing gun deaths is, surely, a goal you should be supporting along with them.
Also, the idea that the rhetoric somehow makes the situation "all or nothing" is ludicrous. Some people may argue this way, but when it comes to making laws and taking actual measures, the slippery slope is not really very slippery at all.
If the government wants to take your guns, not having a pre-existing registry isn't going to stop them from doing it. Moreover, introducing a registry doesn't somehow make the government want to take your guns any more.
In the end, it comes down to public opinion. You can quite easily support a gun registry without supporting confiscation, as can everyone else. How exactly could a microstamp registry be used as a gun registry? If the government is merely given the microstamp and the serial number of the gun associated with that microstamp, how can they possibly turn that into an all-out gun registry? Sure, but that's not the point. You argued that being easy to circumnavigate makes the measure ineffective and pointless - it does not. You didn't use the scare quotes there, and my main point is that the "good guy"/"bad guy" distinction is misleading, scare quotes or no. It's hard to say how much that measure does or does not help to reduce the amount of gun violence, but I'd be inclined to agree it doesn't make that much difference.
Primarily, it would be because they're already a felon - given past evidence, it's probably more likely that they would ignore certain laws than others would. Also, there are clear and immediate benefit to a felon in owning a firearm - the foremost among them is probably that it would make them feel a lot safer.
The further your opinions diverge with someone else, the more you have to talk about. Yes, the wide gap makes it less likely that you'll convince the other, but it isn't just about wholly convincing one person or the other. There are plenty of advantages to having a debate, and many of those advantages are greater, not smaller, in the case of an extreme disagreement.
In the case of an extreme disagreement, I think it is very important to discover the core, underlying causes of that disagreement. It is all the more important to do so when opinions diverge wildly.
There are, of course, other advantages. For one thing, debates can help either side to clarify and solidify their position, and to correct flaws in their thinking or in their arguments.
Additionally, debates don't just benefit the people who are arguing on either side - anyone else who reads the arguments from both sides can get plenty of use out of it.
Besides that, although you may not expect to wholly change someone's mind, that doesn't mean you won't have any effect whatsoever. At the very least, you can reasonably expect that there will be minor aspects to their position that can be corrected or dismissed altogether. You should also expect that, if you can lead them to understand your position, they should be at least a little bit more amenable to it, or more tolerant of those who hold it.
Yes, people can change their opinions on something being right and wrong when they change perspective, but I don't think that necessarily makes that something "subjective". Instead, I think that it's primarily evidence that those perspectives themselves can be flawed or "wrong". Yes, people generally agree that murder, theft, and rape are wrong, but that isn't objectively true simply because people agree about it. Similarly, there is a lot of disagreement on climate change, but that doesn't make it subjective.
Also, while I would agree that murder and rape are wrong in anything short of a ludicrous hypothetical, I don't think that that is the case for theft - I do think theft can be justifiable in some circumstances. Don't legislate that I must or cannot own another human being as a slave...
If we followed your line of reasoning, it would have been unacceptable to ban slavery. After all, there was a time when people had different perspectives on slavery - some felt it was OK, and some didn't. Indeed, some people changed their minds on whether or not slavery was wrong. By your argument, that would make slavery a subjective matter, and hence to ban slavery would have been "forcing subjective opinions on the public".
I'm sorry, Belliger, but I don't buy into the concept of "subjective" right and wrong and "objective" right and wrong - only right and wrong.
Sorry, no. People aren't saying "owning this gun is wrong to me, so you cannot have it either". This isn't simply a matter of people who have different feelings about guns. The core conceptual issue is not a disagreement between people who "like" guns and people who do not.
This is a matter of large numbers of people dying in gun-related deaths who might not be dying if at least some kinds of measures were taken. Whether or not you "like" guns, or "like" the idea of people being able to own a gun, simply isn't what's at stake here.
Moreover, it's not like the only measure that might be taken is an all-out ban of all guns - there are plenty of less extreme measures that could do plenty of good in this matter. As such, not only is your concept of "subjective right and wrong" relatively flawed, it's also not particularly relevant.
If, at every step of every proposal about every point about gun control, the only thing you contribute is "No" then you really are doing and saying nothing.
Tell us what you would change.
Or, at the very least, give us a hint at the philosophy or outlook or moral framework that you subscribe to that, miraculously, at every single point, holds true to exactly the laws that are in place at the moment and are incompatible with any attempt to reduce the loss of life to guns in the future.
I have added to the thread with information on the law, on mindset and one capabilities of weapons and their limitations. I think I'm contributing more than a no.
Gun control laws that AaronC supports:
Mandatory safety training and licensing of gun owners issued in all states in a shall issue method for anyone that passes the training including classroom and practice training. Classroom training includes discussion of the legalities of self defense and an overview of the aftermath. (legal, emotional)
A background check for the license, as long as the license is shall issue and the cost is minimal so as not to be used as a way to prevent it being issued.
Mandatory sentences for felons caught with firearms.
Mandatory sentences (add on) for violent crimes committed with a firearm.
Background checks could be eliminated by the holding of a license to own that required the check already.
I support the idea of a gun registry in principle, I am afraid of the gun registry in practice. If a gun registry could be maintained by an independent third party agency that provided a double blind for the info until a gun was recovered I would be ok with it, as well as the requirement that all guns when sold had to have their info updated. (or when stolen) We have already seen the FBI, the TSA, the ATF and other agencies abuse their power and exceed their authority and retain data they were legally mandated not too... so I'm leery.
There are probably more, but its 4:26 am and I'm going to bed.
Harsher penalties have been shown to have zero impact on preventing crime. Overall crime is down in the US and one factor may be three strikes laws and the sheer number of people in prison unable to commit the crimes they would have committed. The evidence is not clear on that, there are many other factors.
Harsher penalties are about penalties, not prevention.
(Actually, to be fair, I'd support periodic re-testing for vehicle licenses as well. Can't tell you the number of times I've nearly be wiped by some asshole who learned to drive before roundabouts were invented and hasn't learned how in the intervening time.) I see where you're coming from, but it's a point I've made before - if they wanted to dick people, a registry isn't going to make one iota of difference. They can already figure it out trivially from cross-referencing other information. So even from that perspective, I can't see the harm in a registry that they can't already do with an equal amount of effort.
However, an independent watchdog isn't a bad idea, as long as the watchdog has some teeth. Someone is watching the watchmen, so it'd be nice if it wasn't the watchmen themselves doing it.
Once you know the contents of the argument itself, the motivations and feelings of the people who advocate for a certain idea have essentially no bearing on the validity of that argument. If you're going to reject gun control measures, do so on the actual merits rather than on your perceptions of the people who support them.
Moreover, if you start judging based on those kinds of perceptions, you're making yourself far more susceptible to cognitive biases. You are much more vulnerable to confirmation bias if you allow yourself to judge a position based on the opinions of specific people.
Besides, are you really going to say that one should oppose everything that comes out of the Brady Campaign's mouths simply because they said it? Support the measures you think will help, and oppose the ones that don't. Besides that, I think it's telling that you're the one who brought up the Brady Campaign and not the gun control advocates in this thread - I, for one, have tried to focus on the actual ideas at stake.
Just because someone wants to confiscate guns altogether doesn't mean you can't come to an agreement with them about reasonable measures. That doesn't stop you from putting all of your effort into opposing any unreasonable measures they might bring up later.
In short, I really don't buy into your whole "slippery slope" argument against gun control. I (and, I think, most people in this thread) agree with you regards to mandatory safety training and licensing. Unfortunately, it seems like there's not enough support for it more broadly - more advocacy is needed.
I am, however, not so hot on mandatory sentencing. Yes, it makes sense to punish felons for possessing firearms, and to sentence violent crimes more heavily when they're committed with a firearm. That said, the actual sentencing should still be done on the specifics of an individual case; mandatory sentences are not generally a good idea.
I think the truth is somewhat more complicated than that; it likely depends to a significant extent on the nature of the crime. Nonetheless, it's an important point; it is rhetorically attractive to support harsher penalties, but the effectiveness is questionable.
That being said, I think that that qualitative differences (rather than quantitative ones) do matter. I think the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony, and between a fine and major jail time does, in fact, matter. Also, I think there is a significant difference between penalties and no penalties at all, and between poorly-enforced penalties and well-enforced ones.
In the context in which penalties were brought up - that is, the enforcement of gun control measures in and of themselves, rather than as an addition to pre-existing criminal sentencing - I think such penalties would, in fact, make a difference.
I realize that what I have described sounds exactly like a slippery slope argument but it is not a slippery slope when the people behind it have already stated their end goal and method to achieve it.
In this case, it's ludicrous to suggest that the mere fact that the Brady Campaign exists means that gun control measures will lead to gun confiscation. Even if it is true that their ultimate goal is to ban all guns, which is not all that clear, they hardly have the ability to do so. What, exactly, is the causal mechanism by which this one advocacy group is going to achieve your claimed goal?
Also I think mandatory sentences aren't really a good idea.
Also, I'm with AaronC about the registry. I think that would be a good way of getting the extra benefits from a registry (however small they may be) without pissing off the "teken mah guns" crowd and inviting governmental abuse.
I completely agree with Rym on the less than lethal weapons. I could open carry a gun without a permit but I have to get a CPL and take an extra course to carry a Taser?
Scar's real(the story's boring), but I'm just taking the piss dude.